80 F.4th 1259
11th Cir.2023Background
- Nine‑year‑old Black fourth‑grader McKenzie Adams was repeatedly harassed at U.S. Jones Elementary (2018): classmates used racial and sexualized epithets (including the N‑word), taunted her appearance and hair, passed profane notes, and at times physically grabbed her.
- Teachers documented incidents and disciplined at least one perpetrator (E.C.) with write‑ups and in‑school suspension; assistant principal Tracy Stewart implemented a "safety plan" allowing McKenzie to leave class when threatened.
- Alabama enacted the Jamari Terrell Williams Act (effective June 1, 2018) requiring school anti‑bullying programs; the State issued a model plan in December 2018 and DCS adopted it in February 2019; DCS already had a Code of Conduct and annual "Back to Basics" training on bullying and suicide prevention.
- McKenzie died by suicide in December 2018; her mother and grandmother sued DCS and school officials under Title IX, Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (equal protection and substantive due process), and Alabama wrongful‑death claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants (finding no deliberate indifference or discriminatory intent and holding some officials entitled to state‑agent immunity); the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title IX deliberate‑indifference | DCS was deliberately indifferent to known sex‑based harassment, violating Title IX. | School responded reasonably (discipline, safety plan, trainings); lack of effectiveness ≠ deliberate indifference. | Affirmed: evidence insufficient to show deliberate indifference. |
| Title VI / Equal Protection standard & liability | DCS was deliberately indifferent to race‑based harassment and failed to implement Williams Act policies; thus liable under Title VI and Equal Protection. | Title VI should not impose greater liability; DCS acted reasonably and lacked discriminatory intent or a custom of ignoring harassment. | Held (as to standard): Title VI student‑on‑student claims require deliberate indifference. On facts: no deliberate indifference or intent to discriminate. |
| Substantive due process (§ 1983) | Official inaction over Williams Act and bullying was arbitrary/conscience‑shocking, violating substantive due process. | Conduct not conscience‑shocking; deliberate indifference in non‑custodial school context rarely suffices. | Affirmed: conduct not arbitrary or conscience‑shocking; no § 1983 violation. |
| Alabama wrongful‑death / state‑agent immunity | Kallhoff and Infinger exceeded authority by failing to implement Williams Act rules, so immunity does not apply. | Officials exercised discretionary supervisory duties (policy, training, waiting for state model); state‑agent immunity bars suit. | Affirmed: officials entitled to state‑agent immunity; no exception shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis ex rel. LaShonda D. v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (Title IX deliberate‑indifference framework for student‑on‑student sexual harassment)
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (1998) (liability requires official decision not to remedy harassment)
- Franklin v. Gwinnett Cnty. Pub. Sch., 503 U.S. 60 (1992) (damages remedy under Title IX)
- Fitzgerald v. Barnstable Sch. Comm., 555 U.S. 246 (2009) (Title IX interpreted consistently with Title VI)
- Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181 (2002) (Title IX/Title VI consistency principles)
- Hill v. Cundiff, 797 F.3d 948 (11th Cir. 2015) (applying Davis deliberate‑indifference standard)
- L.S. ex rel. Hernandez v. Peterson, 982 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2020) (defining deliberate indifference as knowing and disregarding an excessive risk)
- Zeno v. Pine Plains Cent. Sch. Dist., 702 F.3d 655 (2d Cir. 2012) (applying Title IX deliberate‑indifference standard to Title VI)
- Bryant v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. I‑38, 334 F.3d 928 (10th Cir. 2003) (same conclusion on Title VI)
- Ex parte Cranman, 792 So. 2d 392 (Ala. 2000) (state‑agent immunity for discretionary educational duties)